Crum v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Crum v. State

916 So. 2d 823, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8531, 2005 WL 1347345

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 8, 2005

DocketNo. 2D04-1064

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 916 So. 2d 823 (Crum v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crum v. State, 916 So. 2d 823, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 8531, 2005 WL 1347345 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, JOHN M., Senior Judge.

Abel Crum appeals from his judgment and sentence for possession of cocaine. He argues that the trial court improperly imposed a $150 cost for the court improvement fund under section 939.18, Florida Statutes (2003), as part of his sentence without considering his financial ability to pay. We agree.

“Section 939.18(l)(b) allows the trial court to impose this discretionary cost if it finds that the person has the ability to pay the cost, and payment of the cost will not interfere with the person’s ability to pay child support and restitution.” Patterson v. State, 796 So.2d 572, 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The trial court failed to make these findings, and therefore we reverse the imposition of the cost.

Accordingly, we affirm Crum’s judgment- and sentence, reverse the portion of the sentence imposing the $150 cost, and remand to strike this cost from the sentence. The trial court may again impose this cost after complying with section 939.18(1)(b). See Strickland v. State, 889 So.2d 219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI